My
opinion is that the interpretation of the rules published by the chair of the SG
appointed by Paul and affirmed by the SEC, one who presumably has sufficient
experience in the workings of the LMSC and the P&P to hold the position, is
valid and has granted membership to those that were present for 75% of the
meetings of the March session. I don't agree with the chair's
interpretation and consider it unduly restrictive, given the actual language of
the rule. But, that was what was published to the study group and copies
provided to the SEC chair and other members of the SEC.

However, I am willing to disenfranchise those members that can be shown
not to have attended the requisite number of meetings at previous sessions of
the WORKING GROUP. Given that such evidence cannot be produced, because
there were no previous meetings of the working group, any interpretation of the
P&P membership retention rule that would disenfranchise those
members is clearly absurd. Just as some might say that the members
attended no previous sessions of the WG. I can say that those same members
attended ALL previous sessions of the WG.

Those
that were present when the existing rules were crafted have clearly indicated
that the rules are intended to grant immediate membership, so that the WG can
begin conducting official business at its first meeting (not session). Any
interpretation of the retention rule that immediately removes that membership is
also clearly absurd, since the WG can no longer continue to conduct business,
not even at the second meeting of the first session.

So, we
have gotten ourselves into this fine mess and Mat has asked us to use a
procedure form Robert's Rules to interpret the P&P to get ourselves out of
it. Robert's says that the interpretation should be in accordance with the
intention at the time the rule was written. I have seen nothing to
contrary to the statements made that membership was immediate and necessary to
begin conducting business.

In my
opinion, it is not the initial membership rule that is ambiguous, but the
retention rule, which does not account for the startup conditions of the working
group.

So far, I haven’t seen
a lot of comment on my suggestion that we interpret the rules. The email
trail to date is given below. To summarize what I have heard so far (based
on the e-mail trail):

1)At least some of us believe that
membership based on SG attendance was originally discussed by 802 and
intentionally avoided in the current rules

2)Al least some of us believe that the
intent of the current rules was indeed to give anyone present at the initial
meeting voting rights under the assumption they would continue to
attend

3)At least some of us believe that
“meeting” really meant “meeting”, not “session” in the current new WG membership
rules

4)At least some of up believe the chair of
a new WG should have the discretion to interpret “meeting” as “session” since
participation is only defined per session (currently)

In addition I have seen
some side traffic concerning other process issues relevant to the upcoming
802.20 elections. However, the focus of my interpretation request is
really on whether or not the membership in 802.20 is valid, not on the election
process itself. I encourage others to start dealing with that topic if
they feel it is an issue. Based on the comments to date, I would have to
say that the rule in error is the one that determines membership
retention. Based on that my recommended interpretation would be to
interpret section 5.1.3.2 titled “Retention” to read:

“Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last four
Plenary session meetings. One duly constituted interim Working Group or
task group meeting may be substituted for one of the two Plenary meetings. (In
the case of a new working group with less than 4 meetings, it is assumed that
the 4 plenary sessions prior to the formation of the group were attended by the
new WG members when determining if membership is retained.)”

I want to clearly
establish before the interim what the membership status of 802.20 members will
be for that meeting. This interpretation would enforce that membership in
that WG is maintained until it can unambiguously be demonstrated that the
retention requirements were not met. If anyone objects to this
interpretation please state so, and why they believe so. I want to have a
full 30 day ballot on an interpretation and I want to make sure I get it right
before I put it forward. That is why I am trying to get inputs now.
Please tell me what you think.

Bob,
I agree completely. The practice in the past has been to grant voting
rights based only on attendance at the first official meeting of the first
plenary session. But since our rules only refer to “participation” in the
first session, I am willing to allow the WG chair to define exactly what is
meant by participation. In this case however where you only have a
temporary chair who may have a stake in the outcome of the voting this may very
well become the minefield to which you refer. Already there has been quite
a bit of dickering over what constitutes valid participation. That’s why I
think we need a re-run with the rules clearly spelled out in advance, so that
everyone has a fair chance to participate. Let’s hope Geoff can bring his
usual measure of sanity to the process. J

Buzz may
be the longest term SEC member, but I think I have a slightly different long
term perspective as having been in the 802 trenches the longest of any SEC
member. Since 1981 I have participated in (and I think had voting
rights on): 802.2 (as an 802 voter), 802.3, 802.4 (when it was part of the
Token DLMAC), 802.5, 802.6, 802.9 and 802.11. I have had membership in two
working groups at the same time. I have been involved in the organization
of Working Group(s) (802.5 when 802 got dots, and either one or both of
802.6 and 802.9) becoming a member at an initial meeting. My recollection
is that received member rights at an organizational meeting, independent of
session attendance during the plenary week. While long term historical
perspective is enlightening, it may also be a mine
field.

Colleagues,
Matt Sherman has raised some good points for us to consider.

As our now
longest-term member of the SEC, I believe I can speak to the intention of the
current rules based on prior discussions going back to when the rules were
created. The intention behind section 5.1.3.1 was that all attendees who
participated in the first official plenary meeting would be automatically
granted full voting rights (membership) on a grandfathered basis (as though they
had attended the two prior plenaries) so that there would be a pool of eligible
members (voters) to allow for quorum establishment and transaction of committee
business. Otherwise a new working group would be unable to transact any
business for two meetings, something that was deemed unacceptable. There
was consideration given to having a participation requirement based on the
preliminary activities of an initial Study Group, but my recollection is that
study groups were viewed as possibly transitory and unstable entities, which
were subject to changes and might not be fully attended by the major players
until such time as a PAR was officially approved. So the intention was
that the fairest basis was to allow everyone who was willing to commit to active
participation at the first official meeting should be treated as equal
participants and granted full membership.

Every new
Working Group and TAG that has come aboard has had this same basic rule, so it
has worked fairly well. However this is the very first instance that I’m
aware of, in which all of the officers elected had not been participants of the
prior Study group which created the PAR. With the exception of Peter
Tarrant, who led the Hi-Speed LAN Study Group that ultimately morphed into
100BASE-T and 802.12, the person who was chair of the Study Group has always
been elected to Chair the Working Group or TAG. There was some serious
controversy about that particular dynamic as well.

I
personally believe that the correct course for us will be to maintain the voters
list from the Dallas meeting and run a roll call election at the July
plenary. Anyone who qualified as a voter in Dallas should be entitled to
vote in SF whether they attend the interim or not. Once the outcome is
officially recorded, the SEC can address any remaining issues of block voting
based on the data, rather than on a lot of hearsay and opinion. At least
there is some opportunity in the meantime to find some compromise solutions
which may allow the problem to solve itself. Time heals all
wounds. J

I wish to call to your attention to
a particular section of Robert’s Rules. That section is the following from
Article IX of Robert’s Rules (10th edition):

“If a bylaw is ambiguous, it must be interpreted, if possible, in harmony with
other bylaws. The interpretations should be in accordance with the
intention of the society at the time the bylaw was adopted, as far as this can
be determined. Again, intent plays no role unless the meaning is unclear
or uncertain, but where an ambiguity exists, a majority vote is all that is
required to decide the question. The ambiguous or doubtful expression
should be amended as soon as practicable.”

I am of the opinion that our
“bylaws” (the LMSC P&P) are in fact “ambiguous or doubtful” regarding the
process of obtaining membership at the start up of a working group. In
particular we have from section 5.1.3.1 titled
“Establishment”:

“All persons participating in the initial meeting of the Working Group become
members of the Working Group.”

On the other hand we have from
section 5.1.3.2 titled “Retention”:

“Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last four
Plenary session meetings. One duly constituted interim Working Group or
task group meeting may be substituted for one of the two Plenary
meetings.”

As was so well explained by Tony
(thank you for the excellent analysis) in an earlier e-mail, these two rules
clearly seem to be at odds with one another. Setting aside for a moment
the question of whether or not we intended “meeting” or “session” in section
5.1.3.1 (a topic for yet another interpretation) these two rules seem to
conflict with one another. Even taking the liberal view that meeting means
session, after the first session the general rules would kick in and all
“members” would seem to lose their membership in the WG.

All this said, we already have a
P&P change ballot which should “fix” this problem by the end of the July
meeting. My concern is for the beginning of the July meeting. Given
what happened in March to 802.20, I would like to have a clearer interpretation
of these “bylaws” so that we don’t have a repeat of the last meeting. As
indicated by Robert’s Rules, an interpretation can be established by majority
vote. I believe a motion could be put forward and then approved
electronically prior to the July meeting. But before I do that, I wanted
to open this issue for debate prior to making any motions so that I can make
sure I make the right motion (or perhaps chose not to make a motion at all).